| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Lee Cates | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III | Member | |
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his records be corrected to show he was honorably discharged.
APPLICANT STATES: He alleges the Department of Veterans Affairs upgraded his discharge by issuing him a certificate for a guaranteed loan, but that his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) was not corrected. He indicates that his original DD Form 214 was not in error but that the VA upgraded it in 1996 or 1997.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The Board considered the applicant’s request on 4 December 2001 and, although they voted to deny relief, the board, by unanimous vote, determined that the applicant’s failure to file within the statutory time limits should be excused. Hence the applicant’s case has been reconstituted to excuse his failure to timely file.
On 22 January 1982, after serving 5 years, 11 months and 2 days of prior honorable active service, the applicant reenlisted in the Army, pay grade E-4, in his military occupational specialty of 95C (Correctional Specialist).
On 11 May 1983, the applicant was barred from reenlistment based on his self-admittance of use of marijuana and for his failure of a drug test.
On 17 May 1983, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for the wrongful possession and use of marijuana on or about 5 April 1983. His punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-2. The applicant did not appeal the punishment.
On 23 June 1983, the applicant accepted NJP for the wrongful possession and use of marijuana on or about 17 May 1983. His punishment included a reduction to pay grade E-1, restriction and extra duty. The applicant did not appeal the punishment.
The applicant requested a discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial, under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 on 25 August 1983.
On 13 September 1983, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant’s request and directed he receive a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC).
On 16 September 1983, the applicant was discharged UOTHC, in pay grade E-1, under the above cited regulation. His DD Form 214 shows he had 7 years, 6 months and 27 days of creditable service.
There is no evidence of a later upgrade of his discharge to honorable for the period under review. The VA under its own rules has the authority to grant benefits based on periods of honorable service or to deny benefits for a lesser quality of service.
Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 10 (Discharge for the Good of the Service), then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 provided, in pertinent part, that a member who had committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could at any time after the charges had been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. At the time of the applicant’s separation, the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge.
Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-7 provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.
This Board operates under the standard of presumption of regularity in governmental affairs. The standard states, in effect, that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board must presume that all actions taken by the military were proper. There is nothing in the records or in the evidence submitted by the applicant that overcomes this presumption.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. The applicant chose to request an administrative discharge rather than risk the consequences of a court-martial. Although he may now feel that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date.
2. The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.
3. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
4. In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
5. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
DETERMINATION: The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
_jns____ _le_____ _tbr____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001062094 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011220 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130003332
He acknowledged he was guilty of the charges or lesser included charges and that, if his request for discharge is accepted, he could receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions and be furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. He stated the applicant had received NJP on 13 May 1983 for possession and use of marijuana. On 25 January 1984, the separation authority, a major general, approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067833C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 28 October 1989, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001055837C070420
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The applicant requests...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070002799
The applicant states that he received an honorable discharge for his first tour of service and that his service record does not reflect his first honorable characterization of service. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) the applicant was issued at the time of his discharge confirms he was discharged with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The applicant contends that his discharge should be upgraded because his first period of service was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080710C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The appropriate authority approved his request on 28 February 1983 and directed that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions. Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions while on excess leave, on 18 March 1983, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070017279
BOARD DATE: 13 March 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070017279 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 8 February 1983, the separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that he be issued a discharge certificate under other than honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130012530
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 27 March 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130012530 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. On 9 March 1983, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, with a discharge under other than honorable conditions and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. The evidence of record clearly shows the court-martial charges...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059002C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 29 March 1984 the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions. While the applicant may have been experiencing personal problems at the time, there is no indication in the available records and the applicant has provided no evidence to support his contention that he sought...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | AR20070004428C071029
Accordingly, on 30 September 1982, he reenlisted in the Army for an additional 3 years. A review of the available records fails to show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012091
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 5 April 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060012091 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant, who was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 10 (Discharge in Lieu to Trial by Court-Martial), requests that his discharge under other than honorable...